Res 2011-127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program provides for consensus decision-making by a super majority of 75 percent of the Steering Committee members when opposition occurs, in practice, decisions generally were made without opposition and without the need for a vote by Steering Committee members. Collaborative Processes, facilitation consultants, facilitated the stakeholders in developing the elements of Phase I package. Stakeholder workshops were used to discuss complex scientific issues and other issues related to the ESA and the elements of the HCP. 1.7.1.2 Science Subcommittee SB 3 also specifies that the Steering Committee appoint an expert science subcommittee composed of neither fewer than seven nor more than fifteen, but always an odd number of, members. Members had to have technical expertise regarding the Aquifer system, the threatened and endangered species that inhabit the system, springflows, or the development of withdrawal limitations. Initially, the Texas Legislature charged the Science Subcommittee (SSC) with recommendations by December 31, 2008 regarding: The option of designating a separate San Marcos Pool, evaluating how such a designation would affect existing pools, and determining the need for an additional well to measure the San Marcos Pool, if designated; The necessity to maintain minimum springflows, including a specific review of the necessity to maintain a flow to protect federally threatened and endangered species; and Whether adjustments in the trigger levels for the San Marcos Springs flow for the San Antonio Pool should be made. These recommendations were completed and submitted to the EARIP on November 13, 2008. The recommendations are includeEvaluation of Designating a San Marcos Pool, Maintaining Minimum Spring Flows at Comal and San Marcos Springs, and Adjusting the Critical Period Management Triggers for the San Marcos Springs.(EARIP 2008). The SCC concluded that it could not recommend segmenting the San Antonio Pool until the relationships among rainfall, recharge, down gradient water levels and springflow became more predictable. The SSC also found that minimum springflows are required within the context of a system flow regime for the federally-listed species at Comal and San Marcos springs. Finally, the SSC found that the trigger levels for the San Marcos Springs should not be adjusted at this time. The full report is included in Appendix B. This report was peer-reviewed by an independent panel of scientists assembled by the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. The report of the peer review team is attached as Appendix C. The Texas Legislature also required the SSC to analyze species requirements in relation to spring discharge rates and aquifer levels as a function of recharge and withdrawal levels. Based on that analysis, the SSC was to develop recommendations for withdrawal reduction levels and stages for critical period management. This charge included establishing, if appropriate, separate withdrawal reduction levels and stages for critical period management for different 1-20